Questions in the Proposal
Current Legislation
1. Do you think the challenge posed by the Internet in this area requires
the law to be strengthened?
Answer: No.
Evidence of Harm
2. In the absence of conclusive research results as to its possible negative
effects, do you think that there is some pornographic material which is so
degrading, violent or aberrant that it should not be tolerated
Answer: The only material which should be made illegal is where children or
mentally/physically handicapped people are exploited or hurt in the name of
entertainment. No other material should be included, as all opinions on any
matter are subjective, and as everyone has vastly different opinions on what
is or isn't offensive, how on earth can the material in question be judged
accurately and consistently? Being that there is absolutely no evidence to
link this material to any negative effects upon it's viewers, what is the
point of legislating against it?
Content of Material
3. Do you agree with the list of material set out ?
Answer: No. As stated in question 2, the only material which should be made
illegal is where children or mentally/physically handicapped people are
exploited or hurt in the name of entertainment. The proposed material is
setting out far too wide a margin, and will result in thousands, possibly
tens of thousands of otherwise innocent people falling foul of the law.
4. Do you believe there is any justification for being in possession of such
material?
Answer: Yes, but why does anyone need to justify their sexual tastes or
orientation, or for that matter what they choose to view in the privacy of
their own home if they are not harming anyone? If this is the case, then
surely by the same reasoning, everyone who is homosexual would have to
justify their sexuality.
Options
5. Which option do you prefer?
Option 1: add the offence of possession of obscene material to the OPA
Option 2: add the offence of possession of depictions of violent porn,
bestiality and necrophilia to the OPA
Option 3: create a new offence of possession of depictions of violent porn,
bestiality and necrophilia
Option 4: do nothing
Answer: option 4
6. Why do you think this option is best?
Answer: The Government have not provided any justification for their
restrictions, and there is no evidence whatsoever that the material in
question is harmful in any way.
Penalties
7. Which penalty option do you prefer?
* To impose a maximum penalty for possession less than the current OPA
penalty of 3 years
* To impose a penalty for possession of 3 years and increase the penalty for
OPA offences to 5 years.
* None
Answer: None. People who have never done anything wrong in their lives would
face up to 3 years in jail for what is basically tantamount to a thought
crime. I would estimate that the number of people who could be affected by
this legislation could be in excess of tens of thousands. Do the already
overcrowded prisons, bottlenecked courts and limited police force in this
country really have the capacity to cope with the chaos that this
legislation would inevitably cause?
Additional comments:
Whilst I must stress that the material the government are seeking to
legislate against is absolutely not to my own taste, one must appreciate the
need for tolerance of other people's individual tastes and sexual
orientation, and if they are not doing any harm to anyone, surely any
legislation which would seek to criminalise them has absolutely no place in
a democratic society. Why penalise someone for viewing this material when so
little effort seems to be being made to eliminate it at source? And how can
you justify singling out one minority group (i.e. people into spanking,
bondage or similar practices which are not illegal and involve the consent
of both parties) to be legislated against and not another? Furthermore, the
grounds upon which this material is to be judged are mind-bogglingly vague;
how on earth can the average person be expected to judge what may be deemed
'violently pornographic' when there is so little clarification within the
proposed legislation, which doesn't even seem to be able to grasp the very
basic concept of consent?
I think that some very fundamental issues are raised by pressing for this
thoughtlessly conceived legislation which require a much closer look at the
people who are pushing for it and their motives for doing so. This
legislation came about because of the murder of June Longhurst, and one must
feel the deepest sympathy for the grieving relatives she left behind.
However, as the only evidence which links her murder to the issue of violent
pornography are the hysterical headlines of sensation hungry journalists,
this is hardly the basis upon which to be making far-reaching decisions
involving the law. The main pressure to ban violent porn seems to have come
from these newspapers and Mediawatch UK, and I have grave concerns as to the
true motives of both, but more especially the latter. For example, John
Beyer, on the Mediawatch website, has already stated that he feels that the
list of material covered by this legislation is far too limited and should
be extended to include material classified 18R by the BBFC. He states that
"The penalty appropriate for these new offences should be a minimum of three
years imprisonment with heavy fines and confiscation of assets...". This
could easily extend the number of 'overnight criminals' caught up in it's
wake by a few million if it does get extended to include 18R rated
pornography. What could possibly be the justification for this? As for the
heavy fines and confiscation of assets, who exactly will this money benefit?
It can't possibly be the victim's families when the crime in question has no
victim. How can any organisation such as Mediawatch that claims to be acting
for the greater good possibly justify wanting to send innocent people to
prison because their private bedroom activities do not fall into a category
that is morally acceptable by their standards? The proposed legislation is
obviously already being seen by Mediawatch as 'the thin end of the wedge',
and if they are successful this time, then pressure for further censorship
will inevitably follow. And if they are successful in helping introduce laws
which actively discriminate against certain kinds of sexual orientation,
what could follow; pressure to legislate against certain religions? Races?
Anyone who enjoys the freedom of living in a democracy must find the
implications of this absolutely horrifying. Where will it end? Being that
they contain "realistic scenes of sexual violence, staged or otherwise",
could people be sent to prison for up to 3 years for owning DVDs of
critically acclaimed and BBFC certified movies such as 'A History of
Violence', 'Irreversible', 'Salo' or even the Oscar winning drama 'The
Accused'? It obviously doesn't matter to Mr. Beyer, who apparently thinks
nothing of flying in the face of the BBFC, who despite having over eighty
years experience of classifying films, are clearly not up to the task in his
opinion. A supposedly non-political organisation such as Mediawatch, run by
such a small number and narrow representation of the general public should
never have been allowed to have so much influence in matters of Government.
Mediawatch UK should be more stringently regulated, and like the BBFC,
should be made to be more publically accountable to the whole spectrum of
the UK's population seeing that it so clearly exerts such an influence.
I have no doubt that Mediawatch, as an organisation, were founded upon a
decent set of principles, with the greater good of the general public at
heart. How can this still be so when such a large percentage of the general
public will inevitably be very seriously and negatively affected by the
legislation it so strongly pushes for? I feel that the organisation as it
stands at the moment has strayed far from any such ideals, and as such
should be scrutinised far more closely, and even regulated so that the
personal tastes and ideals of one individual are absolutely not allowed to
exert such an influence over the running of a country.
In short, if this legislation comes into effect, it will send out a number
of clear messages to the vast majority of this country's population:
- That we are no longer living in a democracy.
- That it is perfectly acceptable to legislate against certain
minority groups on the whims of a very small number of very
narrow-minded people.
- That a higher prison sentence for viewing such material than
actually committing an act of violence yourself is legally right and
morally acceptable.
- That media-fuelled witch hunts founded on intolerance are also
perfectly acceptable.
- That this Government can no longer decide it's own policies, but
instead must rely on pressure from dubious non-political organisations
to help create the country's legislation.
- That crime, terrorism, binge drinking, violence, drugs, teenage
pregnancy, the struggling NHS, the woefully inadequate transport system,
ridiculously expensive house prices, the pensions crisis, the recent
economic downturn, compensation culture, benefit fraud and bullying in
schools are nowhere near as important to this Government as creating
overnight criminals of a huge number of otherwise innocent people.
- That this Government have no qualms about wasting enormous amounts
of public money.
- That religious bigotry and intolerance is alive and well in 21st
century Britain.
Are these really the messages that you want to be sending out to people?
|
